[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m237ekrhok.fsf@baylibre.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:38:19 -0800
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
rnayak@...eaurora.org, lina.iyer@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/7] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> writes:
> This series contain V3 of both the bindings and the code that implement
> them. They were sent separately earlier.
>
> Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
> their power domains. The process of configuring the performance state is
> pretty much platform dependent and we may need to work with a wide range
> of configurables. For some platforms, like Qcom, it can be a positive
> integer value alone, while in other cases it can be voltage levels, etc.
Why limit it to just voltage levels.
As I suggested earlier, I think this should use OPPs. Remember that a
PM domain is not limited to a hardware power domain, but is just a
grouping mechanism for devices that share some PM properties. As
mentioned by Geert, this can also be a clock domain, where frequencies
would make sense as well. One can imagine using this type of PM domain
to manage an interconnect/bus which has scalable voltage/frequencies as
well.
Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists